There's no such thing as Satan. And Jesus, if he existed, was not divine because there is no such thing as the Christian God either. So what we have to figure out here is why the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (not John, because the desert temptation is conspicuously missing from that gospel) wanted people to hear the story of Jesus' temptation in the desert.

One possibility is that they wanted to portray Jesus as strong willed in the face of temptation. That he could resist the most powerful of seductions. Another possibility is that the authors wanted to show that Jesus was just like the rest of us, in that he faced temptation all the time and that it was hard to overcome it, but we should try to overcome it anyway. Those are off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more possibilities. Either way, the stories are being used to teach something as opposed to being an event that actually took place.

The only thing that would make absolutely no sense at all is if Jesus was God himself made in the flesh. That probably explains why the author of the Gospel of John left it out... because in that gospel above all others, we are told that Jesus is basically God in the flesh. The three synoptic gospels are much less into the whole 'Jesus and God are one and the same' thing. And if Jesus were actually God himself, he wouldn't allow himself to be tempted in the desert like that.

I really would not characterize spag as taking control. I would say it is more a case of trying to justify your preferences by claiming they are god's (or gods') preferences. That way lays danger. It creates a certitude and a lack of critical introspection, which discourages rationality or changing your mind for the good. And in my opinion, this is generally what most religious people do anyway.

I would say it is more a case of trying to justify your preferences by claiming they are god's (or gods') preferences. That way lays danger. It creates a certitude and a lack of critical introspection, which discourages rationality or changing your mind for the good. And in my opinion, this is generally what most religious people do anyway.

I agree. I've never heard a believer say anything like, "I think god was wrong to create [rule x from believer's holy text]. It's a bad rule, so I'm not going to follow it." I've never even heard one say something like, "I think this is a bad rule, but he's god, so I follow it anyway because what he says goes." I'm sure there are believers who say such things, but I've never met one.

I think the closest I've ever come was my former roommate, a biblical literalist and inerrantist, who screwed pretty much anything that had a pulse. He once told me that he believed, quite firmly, that sex was only for marriage because of god's law. I asked him how he reconciled that with all the notches on his bedpost, and he simply said that that was because he was too weak to obey the law. I then suggested that he pray for strength; he replied that he had, and I said, "Well, OK, since god answers all prayers, that means you have the strength to resist fornication now. But you're still doing it." At this point, he just kind of hemmed and hawed, unsurprisingly... I wouldn't be able to think of a response either, had I been him.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

I've never heard a believer say anything like, "I think god was wrong to create [rule x from believer's holy text]. It's a bad rule, so I'm not going to follow it." I've never even heard one say something like, "I think this is a bad rule, but he's god, so I follow it anyway because what he says goes." I'm sure there are believers who say such things, but I've never met one.

I said something very much like this recently. Something along the lines of, no one ever disagrees with god they believe in. Either they believe in a who god thinks exactly as they do, or they do not believe in gods at all.

I really would not characterize spag as taking control. I would say it is more a case of trying to justify your preferences by claiming they are god's (or gods') preferences. That way lays danger. It creates a certitude and a lack of critical introspection, which discourages rationality or changing your mind for the good. And in my opinion, this is generally what most religious people do anyway.

And you would be correct in teh extremes. In the middle however, most religious people don't even care. They are religious because it suits them, and if it doesn't anymore, they don't worry about it. They find something else to fill the need. SPAG is the extreme cases, and really it says it in the name that it is you taking control. Self projection, right?

I agree. I've never heard a believer say anything like, "I think god was wrong to create [rule x from believer's holy text]. It's a bad rule, so I'm not going to follow it." I've never even heard one say something like, "I think this is a bad rule, but he's god, so I follow it anyway because what he says goes." I'm sure there are believers who say such things, but I've never met one.

Yes, these are the people who convienetly forget that the Bible was written by man, not God. There are mistakes and rules that you shouldn't follow, especially ones in Leviticus and Numbers....Mostly from the old testament really. But the Church is mostly new testament anyway, so we don't really care about those. Again, man rules the church, not God, so that's to be expected.

So, yes, there are rules you shouldn't follow and some that are just plain stupid.

And now you've met one. Of course, you'll never meet a theist who says this kind of stuff.

I agree. I've never heard a believer say anything like, "I think god was wrong to create [rule x from believer's holy text]. It's a bad rule, so I'm not going to follow it." I've never even heard one say something like, "I think this is a bad rule, but he's god, so I follow it anyway because what he says goes." I'm sure there are believers who say such things, but I've never met one.

Yes, these are the people who convienetly forget that the Bible was written by man, not God. There are mistakes and rules that you shouldn't follow, especially ones in Leviticus and Numbers....Mostly from the old testament really. But the Church is mostly new testament anyway, so we don't really care about those. Again, man rules the church, not God, so that's to be expected.

So, yes, there are rules you shouldn't follow and some that are just plain stupid.

And now you've met one. Of course, you'll never meet a theist who says this kind of stuff.

So if the "rules and instructions" are stupid why are they there? Did the writers of the Bibles,both OT and NT in your view just make shit up?

Is the Bible OT,NT not inspired by a God in your opinion? The writers of the NT tell you NOT to ignore the rules of the OT,you do .....SPAG at its finest

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

So if the "rules and instructions" are stupid why are they there? Did the writers of the Bibles,both OT and NT in your view just make shit up?

Is the Bible OT,NT not inspired by a God in your opinion? The writers of the NT tell you NOT to ignore the rules of the OT,you do .....SPAG at its finest

As I have said before, and will always say, the Bible is not the be all end all of religion, or even specifically Christianity. It is written by man and has all of the faults of man. I have no doubt that it was inspired by God, but that has no bearing on its correctness or authority. So no, they didn't just make shit up. As humans do, they fit the bible to their circumstances, just as we do today. Rather than dismiss it because of this fact, you can learn from it.

So if the "rules and instructions" are stupid why are they there? Did the writers of the Bibles,both OT and NT in your view just make shit up?

Is the Bible OT,NT not inspired by a God in your opinion? The writers of the NT tell you NOT to ignore the rules of the OT,you do .....SPAG at its finest

As I have said before, and will always say, the Bible is not the be all end all of religion, or even specifically Christianity. It is written by man and has all of the faults of man. I have no doubt that it was inspired by God, but that has no bearing on its correctness or authority. So no, they didn't just make shit up. As humans do, they fit the bible to their circumstances, just as we do today. Rather than dismiss it because of this fact, you can learn from it.

You have't searched deep enough. How old are you? How old is humanity? Look deeper.

Logged

I can live with questions I cannot answer, but I cannot live with questions I cannot ask.

As I have said before, and will always say, the Bible is not the be all end all of religion, or even specifically Christianity. It is written by man and has all of the faults of man. I have no doubt that it was inspired by God, but that has no bearing on its correctness or authority. So no, they didn't just make shit up. As humans do, they fit the bible to their circumstances, just as we do today. Rather than dismiss it because of this fact, you can learn from it.

If you don't think the Bible is the be all and end all of the Christian world view, then what distinguishes you from someone who is simply making things up as they go along or simply following in the footsteps of generations of people who made things up as they went along and just passed what they made up to you?

If the bible has all the faults of man, isn't it possible that the faults carry over into all the most important parts of the bible? The parts that form the major tenants of Christianity? I mean... if we agree that some of the bible is flawed, and we know that people often DO make shit up, and we know that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days, which is more likely??? That they were wrong about it, they made it up, or that a man really DID rise from the dead 3 days later? Be serious now, please. Take your bias out and examine that question as if the bible is nothing more than just another holy book with unverified claims in it (which it absolutely is). The bible gets no free pass in that respect, and if you think it does, then you're adding your personal bias and you know it.

God didn't inspire the bible because God isn't real. Men are real, and men make mistakes, and men have been making up religions for thousands of years. It's utterly ridiculous to think Christianity is real and the other thousands of religions are false.

BTW, what novel and useful things do we learn from reading the bible that we can't get in dozens of other ways? I can think of lots of bad things, and stupid things, but I'm struggling to think of something good that the bible can teach us that I couldn't get from watching the actors in the re-runs of Star Trek TNG

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

If you don't think the Bible is the be all and end all of the Christian world view, then what distinguishes you from someone who is simply making things up as they go along or simply following in the footsteps of generations of people who made things up as they went along and just passed what they made up to you?

This always happens.

Quote

If the bible has all the faults of man, isn't it possible that the faults carry over into all the most important parts of the bible? The parts that form the major tenants of Christianity? I mean... if we agree that some of the bible is flawed, and we know that people often DO make shit up, and we know that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days, which is more likely??? That they were wrong about it, they made it up, or that a man really DID rise from the dead 3 days later? Be serious now, please. Take your bias out and examine that question as if the bible is nothing more than just another holy book with unverified claims in it (which it absolutely is). The bible gets no free pass in that respect, and if you think it does, then you're adding your personal bias and you know it.

Getting a little defensive here?

Quote

God didn't inspire the bible because God isn't real. Men are real, and men make mistakes, and men have been making up religions for thousands of years. It's utterly ridiculous to think Christianity is real and the other thousands of religions are false.

Who said all the other religions are false?

Quote

BTW, what novel and useful things do we learn from reading the bible that we can't get in dozens of other ways? I can think of lots of bad things, and stupid things, but I'm struggling to think of something good that the bible can teach us that I couldn't get from watching the actors in the re-runs of Star Trek TNG

Nothing. You can learn anything from pretty much anywhere. We happen to be talking about the bible, so I confined myself to that.

No. Not at all. I have nothing to be defensive about. You're not attacking. I'm just trying to make the point that if you don't examine the bible the say way you examine other books, then you're using bias. I notice you chose not to answer my question, however, which we see a lot here. It happens when religious folks decide to react to their feelings as opposed to the more difficult task of actually responding with something of substance.

Everyone who picks one specific religion to follow is implying that all the other ones are false. Else they would follow those instead. Some people will say that all religions have 'something to them' as if they are all variants of the truth, but given the lack of verifiable evidence that they all have in common, it's far more reasonable to just say they're all wrong for the same reasons. I'm also willing to say that every religion I've ever heard of is false. I bet you can invent a few more that I can safely say are false as well.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

No. Not at all. I have nothing to be defensive about. You're not attacking. I'm just trying to make the point that if you don't examine the bible the say way you examine other books, then you're using bias. I notice you chose not to answer my question, however, which we see a lot here. It happens when religious folks decide to react to their feelings as opposed to the more difficult task of actually responding with something of substance.

To answer your question, whether or not there was an actual resurrection is a moot point, so your question is also moot.

Quote

Everyone who picks one specific religion to follow is implying that all the other ones are false. Else they would follow those instead. Some people will say that all religions have 'something to them' as if they are all variants of the truth, but given the lack of verifiable evidence that they all have in common, it's far more reasonable to just say they're all wrong for the same reasons. I'm also willing to say that every religion I've ever heard of is false. I bet you can invent a few more that I can safely say are false as well.

It is far more reasonable....

They are not all variants. They all are. And then they are not. Lesson one of religion, duality no longer exists. Something is and something is also not. At the same time. So religion is both false and true at the same time. The same idea is both false and true. Break your dualistic thinking if you want to see religion. But that is your choice. And until you make that choice, me telling you anything won't change your mind about it.

No. SPAG is any case where a person makes a choice regarding what to believe. It does not have to be extreme. It can be very mild. The bible says in 1 Tim that women should not speak in church or teach men. Yet many denominations go so far as to allow women to be reverends and ministers. That is SPAG. They are chosing their modern idea of morality (ie, gender equality) over first century misogyny. Bully for them. I would even say chosing which denomination to subscribe is SPAG.

Folks, I think there is a misunderstanding here. It looks to me that a lot of people have concluded darkdragon is a theist. I'm not sure he is. darkdragon, do you or do you not believe in gods? The answer might resolve some of the disconnect here (either mine or everyone else's).

Folks, I think there is a misunderstanding here. It looks to me that a lot of people have concluded darkdragon is a theist. I'm not sure he is. darkdragon, do you or do you not believe in gods? The answer might resolve some of the disconnect here (either mine or everyone else's).

No. SPAG is any case where a person makes a choice regarding what to believe. It does not have to be extreme. It can be very mild. The bible says in 1 Tim that women should not speak in church or teach men. Yet many denominations go so far as to allow women to be reverends and ministers. That is SPAG. They are chosing their modern idea of morality (ie, gender equality) over first century misogyny. Bully for them. I would even say chosing which denomination to subscribe is SPAG.

A very interesting point. But just because you make a judgement does not mean that you are self projecting. It is one thing to just pick something and say 'we should do this', and another to make a value judgment about something. A value judgement implies that you have wrestled with it a great deal and have come to a conlcusion, i.e. it is not a rash decision. Or a reactionary decision.

it is always SPAG because 100,1000 or even a million people will see the same thing and come to an entirely different conclusion. The conclusions may be similar in nature but still will not be the same. Each individual will put their own spin on it depending on what they have experienced in life. This is why there is not ONE version of Christianity but 38,000 plus versions.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

For example, I don't think Shirley Phelps' is suffering from SPAG. Fred Phelps on the other hand, I would say so. Shirley Phelps is indoctrinated, it's not her ideal of 'God' it's one embedded into her brain. I also think a person could potentially delude themselves from how they're reading the bible, if they took the bible that literally, then they may warp their views around it rather than the other way round. You might think of it as somebody who was a nice guy before but turning into somebody completely different as a result of religion. For example, you hear of cult worship.

In the case of the Nigerian witch burnings/killing, I could see a case for it to suggest that it's not SPAG but using a literal reading of them bible and having it fuel their superstitions. This idea that the cause of pestilence is witchcraft and then find somebody they think is a likely candidate and deal with them in a biblical manner.

But a lot of the time, I do think SPAG, because I think people often think in wishful thoughts and enjoy ideas about the universe that comforts them, or make sense to them in how they're able to perceive it or how they feel. It becomes less about how God is defined and more about a person's own perspective, and I think it's right, there isn't 38,000 version of Christians, sects, yes, but I think for everybody it's minutely different from the next guy in the sect before individual interpretations, variations in thought and personal feelings come into play - I suppose to that degree you could argue there is a level of SPAG in each believer; an individual's own expectations projected onto their deity. I think a big give away of SPAG is when somebody starts off with the phrase "I feel that God..." as opposed to "the bible says", though, the SPAGers who have put more thought into it will back up with the bible as well (see Fred Phelps), so I think it's harder to identify all SPAGers.

Quote from: darkdragon46

So SPAG is just having you own opinion about a theological concept.

Given the bible is meant to be the word of God and his command to the faithful, then there should be no opinions about a theological concept here, because it should be as God has stated it. These opinions can be born out of applying one's own ideals onto the concept and that is self-projection. The God of the bible ends up on taking the characteristics of the people who believe in him rather than the other way round. For example, you could have somebody say, "well, homosexuality is a sin, it says so in Leviticus", then try to find a way to reason out of any ideals in the bible they believe is wrong. I find it saddening[1] that when reading the bibles laws you'll end up reading the 10 commandments and people agreeing, "oh yes, there are good Christian values" then a few pages on in the same book (Deuteronomy, I might be wrong, but I know it's the same book) STILL talking about the laws of the bible, we come across their sexual laws. We have adultery - yes, yes, yes we must punish them, that's wrong, then rape - horribly wrong, we must punish them, sex before marriage? Yep, we believe that's a sin! Being a rape victim? We can't punish them. If the victim is in a town and does not scream, then the rapist should pay her father 50 silver and marry her.

I don't think that's having your own opinion about a theological concept, it is picking and choosing. You only live by the laws you like but ignore the ones you don't or trying to rationalise them when somebody picks you up on it. Similar things happen when the bible contradicts itself. This is why I make the argument that if you really wish to follow the bible word for word then you need a mind capable of multiple states at once, such as having a multiple-personality disorder.

Of course, there are those that actually try to do that.

I know there are other theological arguments surround God and the bible and that not everybody is a literalist, but to take a much more metaphorical approach itself requires a level of self projection, because you're dealing with something subjective and not concrete (figurative language is not concrete), you're working with what appeals to you, your interpretation is based on your own thoughts, experiences and ideals and not necessarily those intended by the author - sometimes it's impossible to know what was intended by the author because you cannot personally ask them. For example, we can't ask Shakespeare about his work because he's dead. This is why people tend to use the 'secret decoder ring' argument, nobody has a secret decoder rings and we can't decode exactly what is meant by anything claimed to be metaphorical. I think we can take out possibilities, but things like "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" actually has multiple arguments on its meaning. I don't see any rich Christians seeing the 'needle' being the kind of needle you use in threadwork. Or to take the idea that it is impossible for rich men to enter the kingdom of heaven. Imagine Mitt Romney saying it in front of his millionaire investors.

Of course, I think there are things we can suggest are likely just based on historical context, but history in itself is something that's difficult to do with complete accuracy. There's a level of expectations, particularly created by things we already know and it's hard to account for any possible anomolies. At least, from my understanding of the subject.

But to drive back to point I was making about subjetivity and interpretations, Dee Snider argued in court over the lyrics of his music with the argument over lyrical interpretation, he suggested people project their own thoughts, expectations, experiences and ideas into the lyrics and make it their own. Where the critics were seeing sado-masochism, Dee Snider was writing about a throat operation (it's Twisted Sister, they don't take themselves seriously). Or the author (whose name has escaped me), whose son was given a bad mark on his essay about a book his dad wrote and even though he asked his dad what his intentions were, but the teacher completely disagreed with it. So how we see something might not have been how the author intended.

So having a more subjective (or metaphorical/literary) approach also gives room for SPAG. We project our own thoughts, expectations, experiences ande beliefs. Interesting, psychologists suggest we do the samething when it comes to memory, it's called '[wiki]Reconstructive memory[/wiki]'.

Then what about the philosophical approach? Ruling out empirical approaches to philosophy, because there's nothing empirical going on with philsophy surrounding the bible, because it's not dealing with the observable or the measureable. We've got the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument and various other a priori philosophical approaches. The kind of approach the like of Plato would use (and of course, he also had his own concept of God) - ones based on thought and not fact or even interpretations of fact. The arguments of Philosopher Thomas Aquinas on Natural Law was Christianifying Aristotle's philosophy. So, would this mean we're taking a much more logical or reasoned approach to understand God and the bible? Does this mean that we can treat the ideas of religion from the view of a reasoned 'opinion' rather than SPAG? Generally this kind of philosophy understands 'truth' to be found within logic, that the 'truth' can be found through thought and reason. It tries to make 'truth' something that's subjective. This of course is where epiricists see fault and of course, it's what scientists try to avoid.

This is exactly like the literary approach and opens much room for self projections because as logical as a person tries to make their argument or how they might view their argument to be based on a reasonable opinion based around logic and not self-projections and the amount of reason they try to use, at the end of the day it comes down to them. Each philosophical argument on the existence of God requires you to accept a certain version of God. The Cosmological Argument doesn't rely on what the bible says, it tries to be more compatible with science. The Teleological Argument does state direct from the bible, but tries to make God fit into reality, the same with the Ontological Argument. The Teleological argument requires the assumption that complex things MUST have been designed and can't be a result of causality, which is not actually a biblical claim. This has been projected onto God because the philosophers writing about it have been trying to make reality and God compatible and it is the bridge between the 2. A God who creates, we have no evidence, so lets make some logic we can apply to God to suggest why he's real and a creator.

It's about how they see the world, what feels right, what works within their own judgments, what makes sense and their own ideas, expectations and experiences. They may not only shape God based on this, but reality too. Thomas Aquinas projected his Aristolian views of reality into Christianity. Shaping Christianity around a philosophy rather than just relying on what the Christian texts actually say. Yes, in this regard it's not just himself he was projecting, but ideas he acquired from Aristotle's work (and others who wrote about Natural Law). I picked Tom because he was very influential and Natural Law is a view held by the Catholic Church. So, we can see how big of an influence one person's SPAG has had.

So SPAG can work itself in any number of ways for any number of reasons. I think impossible for somebody to have an 'opinion' of God that's not built around some level of self-projection. But not all versions of God are necessarily based on an individual's opinion or opinions they themselves have formed. Some are actually based on what the bible actually says, others are based on what's been feed to them and they're not used thoughts of their own.

And there aren't 38000 versions of Christianity, there are...well however many Christians there are versions of Christianity.

Each of the 38,000 plus accounted for "churches" have their own view of what is real and what is metaphor....and every person in every church on any given Sunday would probably discuss their differing views of the Bible(s) compared to others in their church,so ya,I think so (IMO).

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

To answer your question, whether or not there was an actual resurrection is a moot point, so your question is also moot.

Actually, if Jesus really was resurrected, it's not a moot point at all. It's perhaps the most important event in the history of mankind. It didn't happen, but I would hardly call it a moot point if it did.

They are not all variants. They all are. And then they are not. Lesson one of religion, duality no longer exists. Something is and something is also not. At the same time. So religion is both false and true at the same time. The same idea is both false and true. Break your dualistic thinking if you want to see religion. But that is your choice. And until you make that choice, me telling you anything won't change your mind about it.

Folks, I think there is a misunderstanding here. It looks to me that a lot of people have concluded darkdragon is a theist. I'm not sure he is. darkdragon, do you or do you not believe in gods? The answer might resolve some of the disconnect here (either mine or everyone else's).

I am not a theist.

Then can you please explain the following quote pulled directly from one of your posts which directly indicates that you believe in God?

Quote

As I have said before, and will always say, the Bible is not the be all end all of religion, or even specifically Christianity. It is written by man and has all of the faults of man. I have no doubt that it was inspired by God, but that has no bearing on its correctness or authority.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

To answer your question, whether or not there was an actual resurrection is a moot point, so your question is also moot.

Actually, if Jesus really was resurrected, it's not a moot point at all. It's perhaps the most important event in the history of mankind. It didn't happen, but I would hardly call it a moot point if it did.

Well, at least you understand that resurrection is very miraculous. Though your understanding of it is skewed. It is an internal, emotional and personal thing, not physical. So, did Jesus die, did he come back from the dead...doesn't matter. There is a greater miracle.

Quote

Then can you please explain the following quote pulled directly from one of your posts which directly indicates that you believe in God?

Quote

As I have said before, and will always say, the Bible is not the be all end all of religion, or even specifically Christianity. It is written by man and has all of the faults of man. I have no doubt that it was inspired by God, but that has no bearing on its correctness or authority.

They are not all variants. They all are. And then they are not. Lesson one of religion, duality no longer exists. Something is and something is also not. At the same time. So religion is both false and true at the same time. The same idea is both false and true. Break your dualistic thinking if you want to see religion. But that is your choice. And until you make that choice, me telling you anything won't change your mind about it.

If you can't, and your response indicates as such, my answer won't make any sense to you.

Belief implies duality, something you must let go of in religion. Belief, disbelief, atheism, theism...these terms are meaningless in religion. To you, there are everything. They define the battle, define the discussion. To me, they are worth nothing. I have been atheist. I have been theist. I am neither. God is, belief or not, just as science is. You do not have to pick one or the other.

Actually, when looking at the scriptures in totality it appears to paint the picture that it is MAN that in fact plays the part of both the bad guy and the protagonist. The satans spoken of in scripture seem to simply be playing the parts they were designed to play. God on the other hand comes off as a tortured soul of sort as it relates to man. He seems to be fighting an ongoing battle with himself as it relates his decisions to love, save, punish, etc man.

Though your understanding of it is skewed. It is an internal, emotional and personal thing, not physical.

Again... What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that the resurrection story in the bible is an internal, emotional and personal thing? How does your mind get from point A to point B there?

They are not all variants. They all are. And then they are not. Lesson one of religion, duality no longer exists. Something is and something is also not. At the same time. So religion is both false and true at the same time. The same idea is both false and true. Break your dualistic thinking if you want to see religion. But that is your choice. And until you make that choice, me telling you anything won't change your mind about it.

No, I don't understand you at all. I speak English pretty well and I'm relatively well educated and I know what each of the individual words means in the sentences you posted, but when you string them together like that, the paragraph just doesn't mean anything. It's mush.

Belief implies duality, something you must let go of in religion. Belief, disbelief, atheism, theism...these terms are meaningless in religion. To you, there are everything. They define the battle, define the discussion. To me, they are worth nothing. I have been atheist. I have been theist. I am neither. God is, belief or not, just as science is. You do not have to pick one or the other.

Which God is? Are all gods is? If science is, am I is as well? If I let go of my duality, will I still be is? If you are neither atheist nor theist, are you is or not is? Because I believe that the duality implies the religion of the belief, and to me, that is worth nothing and everything at the same time. I have been is, and I have been is not. That's the miracle, even though it's a personal miracle that is, just as the duality is. But the duality is meaningless in religion, even though it defines the battle.

You see, I can be nuts too

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Again... What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that the resurrection story in the bible is an internal, emotional and personal thing? How does your mind get from point A to point B there?

It is hard to understand an emotional journey if you have never experienced one. I'm sure you have, probably one to bring you to your current beliefs, just as I have to mine. Ironically, how you get from point A to point B in this case is the same as going through your on resurrection.

Quote

No, I don't understand you at all. I speak English pretty well and I'm relatively well educated and I know what each of the individual words means in the sentences you posted, but when you string them together like that, the paragraph just doesn't mean anything. It's mush.

And did I not say you wouldn't? You keep thinking this is some debate outside yourself, a conclusion to be reached and then discarded so you can return to whatever you do when you don't post here.

Quote

Which God is? Are all gods is? If science is, am I is as well? If I let go of my duality, will I still be is? If you are neither atheist nor theist, are you is or not is?Because I believe that the duality implies the religion of the belief, and to me, that is worth nothing and everything at the same time. I have been is, and I have been is not. That's the miracle, even though it's a personal miracle that is, just as the duality is. But the duality is meaningless in religion, even though it defines the battle.

You see, I can be nuts too

No, you're not trying to be nuts. You're trying to force me to choose. Is that not why you post? To wring an answer out so you can say "ha! there it is!"?

So, did Jesus die, did he come back from the dead...doesn't matter. There is a greater miracle.

You just said the resurrection was very miraculous. Now you're saying it doesn't matter. Are you doing this intentionally or do you not know you're doing it?

You see what your eyes tell you, nothing else. I have told you, logic does not have a place here. And yet you keep using it. Do you want to learn what this religion stuff is, or do you just want to sit back and laugh because you think it is nonsense? I'll go no further with this, as it does not belong in this thread.

Actually, when looking at the scriptures in totality it appears to paint the picture that it is MAN that in fact plays the part of both the bad guy and the protagonist. The satans spoken of in scripture seem to simply be playing the parts they were designed to play. God on the other hand comes off as a tortured soul of sort as it relates to man. He seems to be fighting an ongoing battle with himself as it relates his decisions to love, save, punish, etc man.

At best God of the Bible an out of control crazy fucker. You can hardly wonder what would go through his mind when he kills people in a flood because he has a temper tantrum.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)